State v. White, 2020 Ohio 4313

Marcus D. White was resentenced in Oct. 2006 on convictions for murder (15 years to life) and felonious assault (7 years) plus a 3-year consecutive firearm specification. The court misstated a 5-year period of postrelease control (PRC) instead of the statutory 3 years.
White did not challenge the erroneous PRC term on direct appeal or in subsequent filings for many years; he first filed a motion to vacate in Sept. 2017.
In Feb. 2019 the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc re-sentencing entry correcting the PRC term from five years to three years, describing the original five-year statement as a scrivener’s error.
White appealed, arguing the PRC should be eliminated because he already served the prison time for the felonious-assault count and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence without an in-person re-resentencing.
The Tenth District stayed the appeal pending the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hudson and then considered Hudson and State v. Harper in ruling the PRC error was voidable (not void) and that unraised PRC claims on direct appeal are barred by res judicata.
The court affirmed the trial court: the nunc pro tunc correction to reduce PRC from five to three years was permissible and not prejudicial, and White’s late challenge was barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (White)	Held
Whether the trial court could reduce the erroneously-imposed PRC term via nunc pro tunc after many years	The correction merely fixed a scrivener's error and benefits White; it did not prejudice him and was proper	The court lacked jurisdiction to alter PRC after the related prison term had been served; correction required in-person re-resentencing	Court: PRC error was voidable, not void; nunc pro tunc correction to reduce five to three years was permissible and not harmful
Whether a failure to impose correct PRC renders the sentence void or voidable and whether the claim is barred by res judicata	PRC errors are voidable; unraised errors on direct appeal are barred by res judicata	PRC error rendered the sentence void, allowing collateral relief years later	Court: Following Hudson and Harper, PRC error is voidable; because White didn’t timely appeal, res judicata bars his late challenge

State v. Hudson, Ohio St.3d (2020) (Ohio Supreme Court: failure to properly impose postrelease control renders sentence voidable, not void; unraised PRC errors are subject to res judicata)
State v. Harper, Ohio St.3d (2020) (Ohio Supreme Court reaffirming that subject-matter and personal jurisdiction being present makes PRC errors voidable, not void)